5 ms·

Not to mention the _costs_ to society/economy to rescue risk-takers every time they get stranded or injured.

Faaak 9y ago
Frankly, if a rescuer takes some risks climbing a crane to rescue someone, then he shouldn't do it. I don't get it when people say: "he's putting rescuers at risks by getting stuck here". Climbing a crane is not complicated. Anyone with climbing and rope work can safely climb and rescue someone up there. I would fine a world where all risks are forbidden to be very sad. I've climbed plenty of cranes and rope-swinged many bridges and viaducts. Of course it's illegal, but for me that's what brings pleasure to my life. Of course I could fall and pancake on the floor. Of course that'll cost the society. But I work, and I cycle instead of driving to work, so I suppose that I would cost the same in average.
- ainiriand 9y ago
  You can ask a passerby of any of your activities if they want to be put at risk just because you are swinging from a crane, let's see if that compares with the same answer when you ask them if they want to take the risk of living in a city with car smoke. It is just not the same.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    If I was a passerby I'd say hell yeah I want to watch. And I definitely don't want to live in a smelly polluted city.
    - katastic 9y ago
      I think it's funny I got downvoted for bring up a real problem. New Hampshire, for example, is one of the few states that can send you the bill. And good for them, because in just two years, they had over 260 stranded people and cost the state >$400,000. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-bills-lost-hikers-for-cost-of-rescue/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-bills-lost-hikers-for-cost-o... Cost is a known issue. Additionally sometimes search and responders die trying to rescue them. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hiker-rescuer-killed-at-washington-state-waterfall/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hiker-rescuer-killed-at-washing... That guy's kids don't have a father because someone decided to be an idiot while hiking. It's like hiking is some sort of extended daycare program where people assume they'll be saved by heroes if anything happens so they don't take even the most basic of provisions. People have romanticized nature so much they don't realize "nature" loves to kill people who aren't careful. Like that "into the wild" kid who went out with no real provisions or even a map... and died less than a couples miles from a ranger station with food, water, medicine, and radios. A simple map would have shown saved him. A 1 day seminar on basic survival techniques/facts would have saved him. Using his brain would have saved him. But he didn't get in touch with nature. He committed suicide. You don't play with a high voltage transformer unless you know what you're doing... and you don't hike into the middle of frozen hell unless you know what you're doing--unless you want to die. >Alaskan Park Ranger Peter Christian wrote: >When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn't even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he [had] had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament [...] Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide.[31] Daredevils and other "risk takers" are not only getting themselves killed, but they're also getting search-and-rescue volunteers killed, and costing the state money that could be going to anything else.
  - Faaak 9y ago
    In general, passerbys start taking photos and videos. Crane are situated in construction sites (I only go during the night or during the weekends), so if we crash, we'll only kill some ants. As for the bridges and viaducts, there's either a river underneath (some fish may be harmed), or a plain forest. So no, no passerby is "put at risk". The risk is very low. It seems dangerous swinging from a crane, but the gear is meant for that. Driving to work is way more dangerous.

Frankly, if a rescuer takes some risks climbing a crane to rescue someone, then he shouldn't do it. I don't get it when people say: "he's putting rescuers at risks by getting stuck here". Climbing a crane is not complicated. Anyone with climbing and rope work can safely climb and rescue someone up there. I would fine a world where all risks are forbidden to be very sad. I've climbed plenty of cranes and rope-swinged many bridges and viaducts. Of course it's illegal, but for me that's what brings pleasure to my life. Of course I could fall and pancake on the floor. Of course that'll cost the society. But I work, and I cycle instead of driving to work, so I suppose that I would cost the same in average.

ainiriand 9y ago
You can ask a passerby of any of your activities if they want to be put at risk just because you are swinging from a crane, let's see if that compares with the same answer when you ask them if they want to take the risk of living in a city with car smoke. It is just not the same.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  If I was a passerby I'd say hell yeah I want to watch. And I definitely don't want to live in a smelly polluted city.
  - katastic 9y ago
    I think it's funny I got downvoted for bring up a real problem. New Hampshire, for example, is one of the few states that can send you the bill. And good for them, because in just two years, they had over 260 stranded people and cost the state >$400,000. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-bills-lost-hikers-for-cost-of-rescue/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nh-bills-lost-hikers-for-cost-o... Cost is a known issue. Additionally sometimes search and responders die trying to rescue them. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hiker-rescuer-killed-at-washington-state-waterfall/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hiker-rescuer-killed-at-washing... That guy's kids don't have a father because someone decided to be an idiot while hiking. It's like hiking is some sort of extended daycare program where people assume they'll be saved by heroes if anything happens so they don't take even the most basic of provisions. People have romanticized nature so much they don't realize "nature" loves to kill people who aren't careful. Like that "into the wild" kid who went out with no real provisions or even a map... and died less than a couples miles from a ranger station with food, water, medicine, and radios. A simple map would have shown saved him. A 1 day seminar on basic survival techniques/facts would have saved him. Using his brain would have saved him. But he didn't get in touch with nature. He committed suicide. You don't play with a high voltage transformer unless you know what you're doing... and you don't hike into the middle of frozen hell unless you know what you're doing--unless you want to die. >Alaskan Park Ranger Peter Christian wrote: >When you consider McCandless from my perspective, you quickly see that what he did wasn't even particularly daring, just stupid, tragic, and inconsiderate. First off, he spent very little time learning how to actually live in the wild. He arrived at the Stampede Trail without even a map of the area. If he [had] had a good map he could have walked out of his predicament [...] Essentially, Chris McCandless committed suicide.[31] Daredevils and other "risk takers" are not only getting themselves killed, but they're also getting search-and-rescue volunteers killed, and costing the state money that could be going to anything else.
- Faaak 9y ago
  In general, passerbys start taking photos and videos. Crane are situated in construction sites (I only go during the night or during the weekends), so if we crash, we'll only kill some ants. As for the bridges and viaducts, there's either a river underneath (some fish may be harmed), or a plain forest. So no, no passerby is "put at risk". The risk is very low. It seems dangerous swinging from a crane, but the gear is meant for that. Driving to work is way more dangerous.